Tuesday, October 01, 2002
The torch sputters out. After being unable to fend off growing allegations of "ethical violations," New Jersey Senator Bob Torricelli announced that he is dropping out of the race for his own senate seat. The idealistic part of me wants to chalk this one up to the system tolerating only so much blatant flaunting of the rules. After all, lesser lights including former State Department official Ken Quinones and David Chang, the Korean businessman who funneled the cash to Torricelli, have already been prosecuted. For a while it appeared that Torricelli would be able to escape with only a slap on the wrist from the senate.
Of course the question now is, "what next"? I listened to the press conference held by the Republican candidate Doug Forrester on C-SPAN radio last night and have to confess that I find Forrester's claim that "The laws of the state of New Jersey do not contain a 'we think we're going to lose so we get to pick someone new' clause" to be rather compelling. At the same time, I feel somewhat uneasy about the prospect of denying the people of New Jersey, most of who are Democrats, the opportunity to vote for a candidate of their party. Opinion polls before yesterday seemed to indicate that a vote for Forrester was, in many cases, simply a vote against Torricelli.
This leads me to a more fundamental question: is there any ideological foundation for the position of either the Republicans or the Democrats in this case? In other words, if the positions were reversed, would any Republicans still claim that "rule of law" should trump the right of the people of New Jersey to have a choice in November? Would Democrats still proclaim that technicalities should not stand in the way of the people's right to a choice? Or would they suddenly discover the importance of the 51-day deadline? I think one could make a weak case for Republicans/Conservatives demonstrating a proclivity for supporting and upholding the process (e.g. rule of law¡ while Democrats/Liberals often seem more interested in outcomes. However, I¦m afraid that motivational bias is much stronger than any such tendencies in this case.
I would love to be proven wrong. Hence, I propose to award the first ever "It Makes a Difference to the Sheep Independence and Integrity Award" to any public figure, pundit, or blogger who, on the basis of principle, publicly supports the position of the party they generally oppose. I'm not holding my breath.
Update: Stefan Sharkansky maintains that he would "say the same thing if the party labels were switched around.".
Update: blogger guru extraordinaire Glenn Reynolds has a nice round-up of opinions that support the Republican side of this issue. I still have to wonder whether Andrew Sullivan and company would adopt the same position with the same degree of energy if the tables were turned and it was a Republican who dropped out of the race at the last minute.
Of course the question now is, "what next"? I listened to the press conference held by the Republican candidate Doug Forrester on C-SPAN radio last night and have to confess that I find Forrester's claim that "The laws of the state of New Jersey do not contain a 'we think we're going to lose so we get to pick someone new' clause" to be rather compelling. At the same time, I feel somewhat uneasy about the prospect of denying the people of New Jersey, most of who are Democrats, the opportunity to vote for a candidate of their party. Opinion polls before yesterday seemed to indicate that a vote for Forrester was, in many cases, simply a vote against Torricelli.
This leads me to a more fundamental question: is there any ideological foundation for the position of either the Republicans or the Democrats in this case? In other words, if the positions were reversed, would any Republicans still claim that "rule of law" should trump the right of the people of New Jersey to have a choice in November? Would Democrats still proclaim that technicalities should not stand in the way of the people's right to a choice? Or would they suddenly discover the importance of the 51-day deadline? I think one could make a weak case for Republicans/Conservatives demonstrating a proclivity for supporting and upholding the process (e.g. rule of law¡ while Democrats/Liberals often seem more interested in outcomes. However, I¦m afraid that motivational bias is much stronger than any such tendencies in this case.
I would love to be proven wrong. Hence, I propose to award the first ever "It Makes a Difference to the Sheep Independence and Integrity Award" to any public figure, pundit, or blogger who, on the basis of principle, publicly supports the position of the party they generally oppose. I'm not holding my breath.
Update: Stefan Sharkansky maintains that he would "say the same thing if the party labels were switched around.".
Update: blogger guru extraordinaire Glenn Reynolds has a nice round-up of opinions that support the Republican side of this issue. I still have to wonder whether Andrew Sullivan and company would adopt the same position with the same degree of energy if the tables were turned and it was a Republican who dropped out of the race at the last minute.
